| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
| Date: | 2005-12-30 22:50:21 |
| Message-ID: | 1135983021.5052.94.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 16:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > This was discussed on-list by 2 core team members, a committer and
> > myself, but I see no requirements change here. You even accepted the
> > invisible COPY optimization in your last post - why unpick that now?
> > Please forgive my tone, but I am lost for reasonable yet expressive
> > words.
>
> Do you think you are the only one who has rewritten a patch multiple
> times? We all have. The goal is to get the functionality into the
> system in the most seamless way possible. Considering the number of
> people who use PostgreSQL, if it takes use 10 tries, it is worth it
> considering the thousands of people who will use it. Would you have us
> include a sub-optimal patch and have thousands of people adjust to its
> non-optimal functionality? I am sure you would not. Perhaps a company
> would say, "Oh, just ship it", but we don't.
You're right.
Not like we've not been here before, eh?
[I'll look at the tech another day]
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-30 22:52:49 | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-30 22:46:45 | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |